No, hammer is only available on windows and we have no plans at this time to change that.

It is a MFC app, which is a windows only UI tech, so a port would be difficult. Future engines have been designed with cross platform support in the toolchain from the start.

This confirms a couple of things:

1) They will continue releasing their tools/code of Source 2 games and support modding, like they did with Source 1's.
2) One will be able to create mods using his Mac OS/Linux partition, instead of having to install and use Windows.

1) They will continue releasing their tools/code of Source 2 games and support modding, like they did with Source 1's.
2) One will be able to create mods using his Mac OS/Linux partition, instead of having to install and use Windows.

Others act as if the community is too mentally challenged to use their engine, while Valve is actively considering modding to ad value to what they're doing.

To be fair, it did seem like that one single thing they were working on is Dota 2

Personally, I've always assumed that Episode Three/Half-Life 3 has been in development to some extent since the former was announced a little over 7 years ago. Additionally, I prefer to believe that Doug Church has been leading his own team since joining Valve back in March 2011. And, of course, there's the recent Left 4 Dead 3 bug reports.

Personally, I've always assumed that Episode Three/Half-Life 3 has been in development to some extent since the former was announced a little over 7 years ago. Additionally, I prefer to believe that Doug Church has been leading his own team since joining Valve back in March 2011. And, of course, there's the recent Left 4 Dead 3 bug reports.

Will they able to match or even pass some of the most impressive titles/engines around?

Nope, its just too hard to pass something already proven that is getting new features every year. Its like trying to make more content in new MMO, compared to one that is few years already on the market.

I'm *incredibly* curious about it because quite frankly at this point, after years of Source-based stuff, I have absolutely no idea of what Valve is capable of from a "technological" standpoint.

Will they able to match or even pass some of the most impressive titles/engines around?

I'm wondering this as well. Considering the age of Source, its actually lasted quite long. More than anything though, there's no engine that plays as smoothly and responsively as that engine. Hopefully Source 2 keeps that intact.

I'm wondering this as well. Considering the age of Source, its actually lasted quite long. More than anything though, there's no engine that plays as smoothly and responsively as that engine. Hopefully Source 2 keeps that intact.

Yeah, Source is still the only FPS engine that doesn't give me motion sickness. Except Portal.

I'm wondering this as well. Considering the age of Source, its actually lasted quite long. More than anything though, there's no engine that plays as smoothly and responsively as that engine. Hopefully Source 2 keeps that intact.

AND it will be used in probably the best selling next-gen game (TITANFALL) next year.

AND if TITANFALL is successful then you can bet EA/ Respawn will keep on using it for next games in the series.

Pretty good for a soon to be 10 year old engine, no? Almost as reusable as Quake 3's (which is Quake 1's) engine.

I'm *incredibly* curious about it because quite frankly at this point, after years of Source-based stuff, I have absolutely no idea of what Valve is capable of from a "technological" standpoint.

Will they able to match or even pass some of the most impressive titles/engines around?

I honestly expect Source2 to be another example of Valves philosophy to create an engine that is actually useful as a tool and workbench, rather than compiling a list of features that looks good on a presentation but ultimately boil down to visuals only.

With that I mean: High compatibility and scalability. Technology that makes sense and an implementation that allows the highest level of flexibility to the highest range of businesses and communities.

Tech isn't just shaders, and judging by how extensively Source has been upgraded since it's debut I'd expect Source 2 to be a similar path foward.

I'm wondering this as well. Considering the age of Source, its actually lasted quite long. More than anything though, there's no engine that plays as smoothly and responsively as that engine. Hopefully Source 2 keeps that intact.

I think Quake 3 running through the CQ3.exe source port and in CPMA mod is the smoothest I have felt a game. Source is very good though and a league above most things coming out.

I honestly expect Source2 to be another example of Valves philosophy to create an engine that is actually useful as a tool and workbench, rather than compiling a list of features that looks good on a presentation but ultimately boil down to visuals only.

With that I mean: High compatibility and scalability. Technology that makes sense and an implementation that allows the highest level of flexibility to the highest range of businesses and communities.

Tech isn't just shaders, and judging by how extensively Source has been upgraded since it's debut I'd expect Source 2 to be a similar path foward.

I think You need research what CryEngine 3, Frostbite 3 and Unreal Engine 4 are capable of. Its not pure visuals, its much, much more than that.

Nope, its just too hard to pass something already proven that is getting new features every year. Its like trying to make more content in new MMO, compared to one that is few years already on the market.

I'm not sure how your answer is related to my question.
Source 2 being a completely new engine instead of an incremental update is not an "IF", it's a well known fact.
What I was wondering about is if this new engine will be able to compete on even ground with the big players around today.

Originally Posted by Nibel

Source engine games have such a unique, realistic look - I wonder how Source 2 games are going to look like

It's not much about "realism", as it is about a very clean image quality output in render and great responsiveness.

I think You need research what CryEngine 3, Frostbite 3 and Unreal Engine 4 are capable of. Its not pure visuals, its much, much more than that.

Of course they are, but most of the time, when people talk tech, they merely mean flashier graphics. I am well aware that all new engines are aimed at optimizing workflow and including as many platforms as possible, but I'd expect Source 2 to actually go the extra mile when it comes to mod support, scalability and reliability.

What made Source1 so insanely impressive back then wasn't just how much better characters and textures could look, but how the tech behind the engine actually improved on how games could be designed. While trivial today, the physics implementation back then was a game changer. Literally.

With games like Crysis or even BF3/4 you almost feel like the engine itself is the bigger star than the games itself.

I know people think this means HL3 is on consoles, and I do too, and it will be, but it's a pretty interesting indication they're perhaps pushing Source as a viable alternative to UE4/CE3. I think the most interesting news out of E3 was actually TitanFall using Source. Third parties have used it before, of course, but nothing nearly as high profile as TitanFall.

isn't it a little too soon to be claiming that titanfall will be the best selling next-gen game in 2014? lol

the people i know who play COD have never heard of respawn entertainment
its the old film directors situation
some people care who made the movie others have no clue and no concern
i would imagine COD will be biggest game of 2014

I'm not sure how your answer is related to my question.
Source 2 being a completely new engine instead of an incremental update is not an "IF", it's a well known fact.
What I was wondering about is if this new engine will be able to compete on even ground with the big players around today.

Yeah, thats what i meant. Source 2 will be good/decent engine, but it wont be as good as top tier engines, because they are few years ahead in development with actual games being coded into them.

Originally Posted by fabricated backlash

Of course they are, but most of the time, when people talk tech, they merely mean flashier graphics. I am well aware that all new engines are aimed at optimizing workflow and including as many platforms as possible, but I'd expect Source 2 to actually go the extra mile when it comes to mod support, scalability and reliability.

What made Source1 so insanely impressive back then wasn't just how much better characters and textures could look, but how the tech behind the engine actually improved on how games could be designed. While trivial today, the physics implementation back then was a game changer. Literally.

With games like Crysis or even BF3/4 you almost feel like the engine itself is the bigger star than the games itself.

Ok, lets me breakdown some features in those engines.

CryEngine 3 was first engine that was real-time cross compatible, so if You edit something on PC, You edit it automatically on PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. CryEngine was also first fully dynamic, so You edit it in real-time and You can jump to environment with one button press [Frostbite and UE 4 supports this now too].http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-vKJ5-6KM
Of course all physics simulations, all AI path-finding features etc are crossplatform as well and real-time. And scales down to tablets.

Frostbite 3
Is developed by multiple team that specialize in different genres, like RTS, RPGs, Racing games and FPS. Its fully dynamic with server sides simulations and tablet integration. It has very good destruction systems in place

CryEngine 3 was first engine that was real-time cross compatible, so if You edit something on PC, You edit it automatically on PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. CryEngine was also first fully dynamic, so You edit it in real-time and You can jump to environment with one button press [Frostbite and UE 4 supports this now too].http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y-vKJ5-6KM
Of course all physics simulations, all AI path-finding features etc are crossplatform as well and real-time. And scales up to tablets.

Frostbite 3
Is developed by multiple team that specialize in different genres, like RTS, RPGs, Racing games and FPS. Its fully dynamic with server sides simulations and tablet integration. It has very good destruction systems in place

Yes, like I said, workflow optimization and increasing range of business viability. Which are important improvements, but I really expect Source 2 to go a lot further with better mod support and a lot more future proofing. With the possible exception of UE4 which will probably aim at a similar life cycle.

Yes, like I said, workflow optimization and increasing range of business viability. Which are important improvements, but I really expect Source 2 to go a lot further with better mod support and a lot more future proofing. With the possible exception of UE4 which will probably aim at a similar life cycle.

What do You even mean by better mod support? Or future proofing?

You cant have better mod support than allowing to use freeSDK like CryEngine 3 or UE 4 do. Having actual SDK is the best mod support implementation You can provide.

Excuse my ignorance if this has already been answered but is the Source 2 an entirely new engine or are they using the existing Source engine and building upon its fundamentals?

I know that I heard them saying after completing Half-Life 2 that they will never create a new engine ever again because of the amount of work that needed to be put into it.

They instead wanted to keep updating the Source (like they did with Episode 1 and Episode 2), or ultimately buy an engine.

I don't think something like that has been confirmed by Valve, but I assume it will build on some fundamentals if they are still relevant. I doubt it will feel like just an update though, and when they said it Valve was not nearly as successful as it is now.

I still don't think it's a new engine in the terms of 100% built from scratch. But I do think Source 2 will be quite a large update. Larger than say from HL2 to CS:GO in a single update instead of revisions over time.

I still don't think it's a new engine in the terms of 100% built from scratch. But I do think Source 2 will be quite a large update. Larger than say from HL2 to CS:GO in a single update instead of revisions over time.

Neither was Source, technically. It'll be a new engine in much the same way, though, insofar that the tools are new and the underlying components of the engine will have be rewritten. Very few engines are "new" in the sense that they begun life as a blank page.